Ministers should be banging the drum about British skills and planning for the
future
, says Con Coughlin.

The Government’s enthusiastic advocacy of a no-fly zone for Libya has provided a graphic illustration of its willingness, when necessary, to exercise military muscle. Within hours of the UN Security Council approving a resolution that authorised military action, British planes, submarines and frigates were in the thick of it, attacking Colonel Gaddafi’s tanks and anti-aircraft defences.

Indeed, the performance of RAF Tornados and Typhoons has been critical in turning the tide against the Libyan regime’s forces. Thanks to the crews’ skill in using their Storm Shadow and Brimstone missiles in precision attacks, the rebels have been able to battle for control of the port of Sirte, the Gaddafi clan’s stronghold.

The contribution of the sophisticated equipment and weaponry available to the British military has been just as vital to the mission’s success as the bravery of the aircrews. Our involvement would be severely hampered if the Tornados were unable to sustain the demanding,

3,000-mile round-trip sorties they are flying daily from their base at RAF Marham in Norfolk.

Similarly, the Government’s claim to be taking a moral stand against Gaddafi’s brutal dictatorship would be severely compromised if one of the missile guidance systems failed, causing the weapon to kill and maim scores of innocent civilians.

Related Articles

The success of the Libyan mission, then, must be hailed as a triumph for Britain’s defence industry, which has been heavily involved in the development of the aircraft and the weapons that are being used to enforce the no-fly zone.

So why isn’t the Government using this golden opportunity to extol the virtues of that industry? Our defence sector, after all, remains one of the most dynamic and innovative in the economy. It supports an estimated 300,000 jobs across the country and generates around £35 billion a year for the economy, while defence exports are worth £5 billion a year. Britain is Europe’s number one exporter and, in global terms, is second only to the US.

At a time when our ailing economy needs all the help it can get, you might think it would make sense for the Coalition to fly the flag for the superior quality of our equipment. But, surprisingly, this isn’t how ministers appear to see it. Defence industry leaders say that, when it comes to discussing the development of new projects, it is increasingly difficult to find a minister within the senior echelons of the Coalition who is prepared to champion the sector’s cause.

Given the appalling mess the previous government made of the defence budget, which had a £38 billion black hole at the time of the election, it is perhaps understandable that ministers wanted to take a long, hard look at future procurement needs. But, after the difficult decisions taken in last year’s Strategic Defence and Security Review, which cut key capabilities, it is now time for work to begin on rebuilding Britain’s defence infrastructure so that we will have the means to defend ourselves in years to come.

Equipment and weapons systems of the sophistication being used in Libya do not appear overnight. They are the result of years of painstaking research and development. The Typhoon, the newest addition to the RAF’s fleet of jet fighters, took 20 years to develop. Similarly, it will take many years before the new generation of Royal Navy frigates and submarines enter service.

The Government has set itself a target of 2020 for reconfiguring our Armed Forces so that they are capable of dealing with the threats we are likely to face during the first half of the 21st century. This will include new aircraft carriers, frigates and jet fighters.

If, however, the defence industry is to have any chance of delivering the military capabilities future governments will need for Libya-style operations, they need to start work now. And for that to happen, executives say they need a minister to fight their corner.

Even during the darkest days of New Labour they could always count on Lord Mandelson, the former Business Secretary, who latterly took a close interest in preserving the defence sector’s unique skills set. Since last May, though, the atmosphere has changed.

“For all the talk about a new defence strategy, we are still struggling to work out what the Government is planning to do,” said a senior figure with one of Britain’s leading defence firms. “We cannot invest in new development projects until we know which military capabilities are required for our Armed Forces.”

Vince Cable, the Business Secretary, is one minister who could take responsibility for providing guidance. During last year’s defence review, Mr Cable backed Dr Liam Fox, the Defence Secretary, in his battle with the Treasury to build two new aircraft carriers, but is now said to have lost interest.

Meanwhile, Mr Cameron, who has overall responsibility for Britain’s Armed Forces, is too preoccupied with other government business to provide the necessary clarity on defence issues.

It is very much in the Government’s – and the country’s – interests that it

re-establish a good working relationship with our leading defence firms. Otherwise the cry “Bring back Lord Mandelson” will soon be ringing around Whitehall.